The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - initial impressions from an English campaign

[econ21]

I've played a few hours of M2TW, running through a couple of dozen turns of a VH/VH English campaign.

The good:

1) The battles do seem more challenging than RTW and in a good, fair, way, not because the stats are skewed. So far, I am always getting significant casualties in battles - as I did in MTW and STW - not the minimal ones I tend to get even in RTR. I'm not quite sure what's caused this - a combination of the higher morale, the vulnerable cav, slow firing missiles and the AI not doing dumb things, I guess.

2) So far, I like the battlefield AI. I've heard about the passive AI bug, but I've not experienced it. So far, the AI comes on seriously, as if it means business.

A highlight so far was my abortive attempt to storm Caernarvon. First, the Welsh set fire to my ram and siege tower; then they rushed reinforcements from the ground to break my spears climbing the ladders; all the time, raining bodkin arrows down on me. A very active, effective defense and an ignominious defeat. Yay!

But more generally, the AI seems to use it missiles and cavalry cannily; and to go for good unit match ups. It is almost as if I am fighting an equal opponent. The only time I felt I outsmarted the AI was when I recklessly besieged some Flemish rebels, only to find they had a strong garrison that promptly sortied against me. Their armoured spears and pikes outclassed my spears and billmen, so I had to rely on cavalry and missile tactics to best them. It was fun giving pikemen the run around with cav, while shooting them down. But not particularly unrealistic and even then, I only won by a whisker (a general + 2 archers were all that was left of a half stack army).

3) The campaign also seems more challenging. That old feeling of threat that was so present in the STW/MTW risk maps may be back. I feel as if moving a defending army away from a frontier may induce the Scots or the French to strike.

4) The missions are decent - I like the Nobles telling me to boost border defences and the Pope telling me to build churches.

5) Graphically, the game is of course gorgeous on the battlemap - we've seen that in the demo. And with an upgraded video card, I can enjoy it.


The bad:

1) I still find the move speeds a little frenetic, as I did in the demo. I don't feel I am in control as much as I am in the RTW realism mods, let along STW/MTW.

2) The kill rates are sometimes very high: a unit of Flemish knights charging a unit of English spear militia led to the destruction of almost all the latter in a few seconds. I guess I goofed - the spears were not braced. Used properly, spears can mess up knights (e.g. if they catch them at rest).

3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?

4) I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

5) Move speeds on the campaign map seem a little low - it's hard to get much done in a turn. It starts resembling Civ - endlessly clicking end-turn after a lot of little micromanagement.


The ugly:

1) I don't find the campaign map that great to look at. For some reason, I prefer that in RTR PE. Maybe I'm too zoomed in or something.

2) Some of the stats seem strange: the differences seem extremely large. Why is a billman attack 13 and total defence 3; a spear militia attack 5 and total defence 7; an armoured swordsman attack 13 and defence 22? Why does a crossbow have twice the missile attack of a longbow? I preferred the small range of stats in STW/MTW. But I guess the formula for kill rates has changed, as the units don't seem as extremely differentiated as the stats would suggest.

3) Archers shoot really slowly and cavalry die really easily. It seems a slight overcorrection for RTW. Archers often seem to get off only one volley before melee. A unit of hobilars lost half its men during a pursuit of some routers in a town (maybe they rallied, I don't know - that's the fast paced thing again). Knights seem to have paper armour, unless they are the general's (presumably 2HP) bodyguards, in which case they perform in a way I feel about right.

4) I've noticed the apparent bug whereby opposing units don't quickly connect, perhaps because they are trying to maintain some kind of unit cohesion. It can be frustrating, as it means a charge may not strike home with full impact.

5) Not really ugly, but M2TW does not blow me away in the way that RTW initially did (the one campaign I finished, before I got disillusioned and put it away until I found RTR). I guess that's a personal thing - I've played an awful lot of RTW mods and M2TW feels like more of the same. Plus I found the ancient setting more exotic (I had never even heard of Seleucia, for example.)


Bottomline: M2TW is a game that plays well out of the box. It probably is like MTW with RTW graphics. But somehow I feel a little underwhelmed - perhaps because I've experienced MTW and I've experienced RTW graphics. Perhaps because I've been spoilt by RTW mods such as RTR PE, EB and Goth's All factions BI mod.

[AlJabberwock]

Thanks for the review Econ. That was interesting and well said. Of course we all hate you who have yet to get the game, but, I wouldn't be here reading your review otherwise would I... !

Cheers,
Al Jabberwock

[screwtype]

I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

Yeah, I tried to tell you guys the new recruitment system would probably make little if any difference. But you wouldn't listen to me back then...

Move speeds on the campaign map seem a little low - it's hard to get much done in a turn. It starts resembling Civ - endlessly clicking end-turn after a lot of little micromanagement.

That's very discouraging. I've long argued that the slow movement rates on the campaign map are one of the worst, most unrealistic features of the TW series. And it sounds as though the problem is getting worse rather than better! I'm disappointed to hear this, I hoped they had done at least something to improve it a little.

Archers shoot really slowly and cavalry die really easily.

Don't like the sound of these changes either, especially the slow shooting rate. I hope that turns out to be moddable.

[Monarch]

"3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?"

I can't really remember the RTW way of doing things but I think its Brothels that let you train assassins in m2.

[hoetje]

I thought brothels were for spy's?

[Emperor Aurelius]

Excuse me but would you guys mind explaining this unit cap thing as this is news to me? Since when does CA put a stupid unit cap in their games! Don't tell me this is gonna be like all the other strategy games now:gets boring cuz you can't build any more units.

[Lusted]

Say for instance you can recruit peasants, spear militia, peasant archers, billmen and longbowmen in a settlement. You have a unit cap of 6 for the first lot, and 3/4 for the others, but once you've recruited those units, the unit replenishes so you can recruit them again.

3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?

I think the City/Castle system resulted in the change. I find it very good to use, just select what kind of settlement you have(city or castle), then select the type of building and you'll see the different levels of that type of building on the left.

4) I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

They could do with being reduced a bit, as the Sicilans i have no problems fielding armies with large numbers of Norman Knights or Dismounted Norman Knights in them.

[Drake]

The trick to it I think is building up as many recruitment slots as possible, once you get it up a bit then you can start fielding big armies fast enough to not notice any real cap. The agent cap though is smart, makes sense in that how could there be more agents then facilities allow.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Excuse me but would you guys mind explaining this unit cap thing as this is news to me? Since when does CA put a stupid unit cap in their games! Don't tell me this is gonna be like all the other strategy games now:gets boring cuz you can't build any more units.

Doubt it. The more and better settlements you have, the higher your cap goes. There is no "upper pop limit" on the cap, except when you have all the cities fully upgraded, and by then you've won.

[Mahrabals apprentice]

So far I have only been playing custom battles, and I am dissapointed with the English.
Billmen are seriously weak. Their Defence is 5 and they die in droves and run away very easily. And the longbow men are useless for me so far. They shoot slowly and cause few casualties against any foe (so far they have failed dismally against heavy infantry, light infantry and fellow archers, 10 casulaties from a unit seems to be all I can expect). The only thing they have done for me is kill a French General is melee

[castle]

I find you have to fight battles as the auto resolve ends in a loss every time.

[Emperor Aurelius]

Ah I see. So it isn't like "since you got 1 city you can have a max of 1000 soldiers" or anything stupid like that.

One more question:

In MTW 1 you could choose to play in early, mid, or high starting points. Depending on which you palyed as each empire would have different boundaries for each age. Can you choose which age you want to start at anymore or (like civil wars and titles) has this too been denied?

[eefums]

About your calv dying fast..it's probably a very early year and you're in the crappiest of armor. you need to upgrade and later in the game when you get plated lance type knights they'll be a bull dozer.