GameSpot Designer Diary: Mission Design

[Tamur]

So when you kill the king of an enemy faction, and the heir who gave you the mission succeeds the throne, will he become your ally, or at least neutral to you?

If he doesn't change his stance toward you after asceding, then those sorts of missions will be the first ones universally ignored. If there isn't a reward beyond 2000 florins (or whatever), then some jobs simply are not worth it. To my assassins at least

[Zatoichi]

If there isn't a reward beyond 2000 florins (or whatever), then some jobs simply are not worth it. To my assassins at least

Yep, my assassins won't get out of bed for less than 3000 florins...

[Kourutsu]

I wonder what missions the Templars will give you.

"Hey! You got a few thousand florins in store if you go kill Muslims. Or establish a bank. Either one is fine."

[Polemists]

based on a set of criteria, such as the best available target for the mission, time since this mission was last given, time in the game, the mission giver's attitude to the player, and the player's current assets (for example, money, available agents, and so on). The result is that the player gets an interesting set of varied, achievable, and relevant missions throughout the course of the campaig

i like this part alot myself. It shows me that this won't be like, "Attack greece where you have no men." It sounds like your going to get missions where you have resources, and capabilites and it will make sense.

Also for those of you wanting less missons. Keep in mind that while there might be penalties, there is no pope if your orthodox. I havn't heard if there is a council of nobles if your muslim, but I'm gonna doubt it.

So if you play one of the factions of Turks, Almohad, Egypt, then your only missions will probably be ones you want.

Also with guilds keep in mind only guilds you try to attract and build a chapter house for are going to give quests. If you never establish the merchant guild, they won't have power.

I like this alot as a economic mechanism beneath the game. Allowing a organized group of any kind, merchants, explorer's what have you. Gives you benefits but also allows them to have more poltical sway. On other hand if you never let them in your sole ruler, but you don't get there benefits.

In end though I agree with others, this isn't rome, the mission givers won't suddenly start giving you worse and worse ultimatiums as they think your gaining more influence. You are already the king. I assume like most people say if your people are ready to revolt, or if you defy the pope alot reprecussions will be more harsh.

II do like the whole heir ask you to help him idea. However I would keep in mind that so far while it looks better it does not look elaborate. Though only two missions are shown. Problems with in faction might be as simple as asking you to hel them take one of there rebel towns and giving you cash for it.

[Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett]

I'm not too sure about this, it depends how necessary it is I suppose. If taking missions is necessary for maintaining a stable country then I'll be less than impressed, this is the sort of managment I really don't like doing.
I found too much of my time in Rome was distracted away from miltiary logistics by worrying about whether or not my people had adequate access to public health or enough places to worship or enough population growth, or whether I was popular with the people, or whether I was popular with the senate. I'm just not interested in that and adding the worry managing my popularity with guilds as well is not excatly what I considor an improvment to gameplay.

Hopefully I'll be able to concentrate on my military in Medieval 2, like I could in MTW and STW, and these extra factors will simply provide a greater level of control for those who really want to get their hands dirty managing a country.

I though this was a wargame?

[econ21]

I thought this was a wargame?

IMO, TW games are fairly mainstream strategy games that happen to have a battle engine far better than nearly all wargames. Straight wargames are a niche market - all but gone from the high street shelves. But the CA team include people with backgrounds in hardcore wargames and they have brought in an awful lot of wargame-type modelling.

I suspect TW - maybe like the gaming industry in general - is moving more towards producing hybrids. The missions maybe take some features from RPGs. As a keen CRPG fan, I'm cool with that. In fact, I fantasise about the time when I can "possess" my general on the battlefield, Mount and Blade style. We're not that far away from that now (I tend to give orders to other units and then fixate a little on what my general's bodyguard is doing).

[Martok]

IMO, TW games are fairly mainstream strategy games that happen to have a battle engine far better than nearly all wargames. Straight wargames are a niche market - all but gone from the high street shelves. But the CA team include people with backgrounds in hardcore wargames and they have brought in an awful lot of wargame-type modelling.

I concur with that as well. While I love the Total War battles due to how detailed & comprehensive they are (factoring in morale, weather, terrain, fatigue, etc.), I doubt CA has ever intended that to be the only focus of their games, even though it's highlighted as the series' centerpiece feature. Lots of people like building a kingdom/empire just as they like seeing thousands of troops in combat, and the TW games simply combines these two elements better than most--if not all--of the other titles out there.

In fact, I fantasise about the time when I can "possess" my general on the battlefield, Mount and Blade style. We're not that far away from that now (I tend to give orders to other units and then fixate a little on what my general's bodyguard is doing).

Ah, 'tis a consumation devoutly to be wished! I know that I--along with most of my friends that play Total War--have long hoped to such a feature. (A pity that Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War turned out so mediocre, as it had this ability.)